Again, itís not that print is so great, itís just that the Kindle is so rubbish. I like being able to have about six different bookmarks in something at once. I know you can ďbookmarkĒ Kindle pages, but itís not the same feeling as being able to more or less instantly thumb through and look at multiple pages at once, flip ahead immediately, or just get a feel for where certain parts are in the book. A three-dimensional object with sequentially bound pages is inherently easier for primates with hands to interact with than a flat screen that displays single-snapshot blocks of text.†

Iím also skeptical about space concerns. I mean, Iím willing to bet that I have by far the most minimal living situation of anyone on this forum (I can repost the picture of my apartment if proof is needed), and I get by fine. Do you really want to keep every single book you read? You can fit at least a few hundred on a basic bookshelf, and I think if people are honest, thatís about the upper limit of things youíre going to want to keep around and reread.†

Once again...Pale Fire? The Book of the War? House of Leaves? Infinite Jest? No way is anyone making it through these things electronically.†

Again, it’s not that print is so great, it’s just that the Kindle is so rubbish. I like being able to have about six different bookmarks in something at once. I know you can “bookmark” Kindle pages, but it’s not the same feeling as being able to more or less instantly thumb through and look at multiple pages at once, flip ahead immediately, or just get a feel for where certain parts are in the book. A three-dimensional object with sequentially bound pages is inherently easier for primates with hands to interact with than a flat screen that displays single-snapshot blocks of text.

That's the biggest problem I have with ebooks, too. I prefer paper books but have been broken on the wheel of necessity.

I use ebooks as you said you do: for books I have only moderate interest in, and only if they aren't too hard to read in this format.

Quote
Originally Posted by Justin Isis

I’m also skeptical about space concerns. I mean, I’m willing to bet that I have by far the most minimal living situation of anyone on this forum (I can repost the picture of my apartment if proof is needed), and I get by fine. Do you really want to keep every single book you read? You can fit at least a few hundred on a basic bookshelf, and I think if people are honest, that’s about the upper limit of things you’re going to want to keep around and reread.

I've been thinking this, too. At any given time, I only need a few hundred books. But which few hundred? My interests tend to have seasons or cycles; I have sometimes been sure I was finished with books on whatever topic, only to have a renewal of interest in that topic a few months or years later. I have sometimes bought new copies of books I previously culled, which is financial madness. I tend to accumulate a number of (idiosyncratically selected) books on topics I'm interested in, and pencil-mark passages in the margin. I do look back at them. So, yes, I want to keep many of these (sometimes hard-to-find) books with my doofus pencillings in them.

I also have a fairly large number of books that I haven't read yet but want to read (in some cases hunger to read). I will keep many of them. I have gotten better at simply keeping a list of titles I might read whenever I find the time, rather than buying, buying, buying them and stacking them around my domicile.

And there are quite a few favorites accumulated over decades of reading. If I get rid of them, I'll probably just end up buying them again.

There is no doubt an obsessive-compulsive aspect to this.

Quote
Originally Posted by Justin Isis

Once again...Pale Fire? The Book of the War? House of Leaves? Infinite Jest? No way is anyone making it through these things electronically.

For all the grandiloquent praise heaped upon the sanctity of cardboard bound paper, one should not lose sight of the larger picture. Literacy is required for a readership to exist. A readership must exist for authors to thrive. eReaders easily promote literacy in places where shipping boat loads of books is neither feasible nor profitable.

Quote

. . . The more books one reads the more is the literacy rate, the more
person’s knowledge in specific area increases. As reported in UN Human Development Report (2007-2008) literacy rate differs according to countries. In Africa in general it is less than 70% as shown on Graph. 3. Reasons of this phenomenon can be many, but most importantly it is economic environment and logistics. Most of the modern fiction and educational books nowadays are produced in English, French or German in US or Europe. The cost per book is high, in addition to shipping fees the cost per each book increases and deriving from economic situation of some particular countries it is hard to purchase expensive books.

Thusly, invention of e-reader will make it easier to residents of these countries to purchase reading materials, since it is cost efficient; - price of one e-reader is lower than combination of each textbook price. Especially it is true for classic fiction literature, which is mostly free online and can be downloaded easily.

As reported by Bain & Company’s Survey (Graph. 1) there is a significant difference in US between the number of books read by people before and after acquiring e-reader, 52% of respondents claim that they read more books than they had before. In all countries surveyed (Korea, US, France, UK, Germany, Japan) this number is 42%.http://www.academia.edu/4747976/The_...z_Baratashvili

eReaders open up a vast wealth of literature to the third world and encourage *more* reading among owners worldwide. Clearly, on this particular forum, I'm in the minority. I'm the guy in the hipster vinyl shop singing the praises of MP3's to the flannel shirts. I get it. But if you look at the impact eReaders have across the globe it's hard to argue that they've been anything but a net gain for writers and readers alike.

eReaders open up a vast wealth of literature to the third world and encourage *more* reading among owners worldwide. Clearly, on this particular forum, I'm in the minority. I'm the guy in the hipster vinyl shop singing the praises of MP3's to the flannel shirts. I get it. But if you look at the impact eReaders have across the globe it's hard to argue that they've been anything but a net gain for writers and readers alike.

I really like your metaphor about being in the vinyl shop. Its definitely one thing to sing the praises of mp3, and its a whole other thing to be chucking vinyl around the store like a frisbee to see it gleefully shatter against the wall. I make this point because, I wonder if there is a view by some on this thread that in praising mp3/e-readers, proponents are perceived as also taking glee in destroying vinyl/ or doing away with physical books. I really don't see it that way... the two can co-exist.

Is there a concern that physical books will disappear altogether with the advent of e-readers?

I think the advancement of this kind of technology really opens up vistas for many folks who wouldn't otherwise be drawn to actual reading.
That being said, I'm still not touching the blasted thing...

I'm definitely sensing a converging of sentiment and theme in both this thread and the "science says stop complaining" thread.

I've nothing, personally, against the idea of e-books and paper books existing together, and I am even involved in the production of e-books.

There's a lot I could say on this subject, and I am conscious of lack of time.

One thing I dislike about much of what has happened in the past ten years (in the publishing and writing scenes) is the shift of emphasis from literature as a sanctuary from the world, to literature as just another colony of the allied forces of consumerism and technology (in other words, literature is pushed to the periphery of its own world). For the most part, literature is not shoved in anyone's face. Technology, routinely, is. My more personal feelings on the subject (rather than my more rational ones, which are still not exceptionally positive) are along the lines that at least I once had one (figurative) room on the planet that was free of the lurid one-up-man-ship that is inescapable elsewhere, and that room was literature, but now, I feel as if the gadget fetishist has broken into my room (when he or she has the whole world to play in) and insists on rearranging it according to his/her tastes and even whines as if victimised if I object. "What d'you want this whole room for? Why can't you share? You're so anti-social." Etc.

I remember an advert from early on, when e-readers had newly arrived. It featured someone meeting a friend on his way to the bookshop.

She: Where are you going?
He: To the bookshop to buy the new book by [his favourite author].
She: Oh, is it out? [She takes out a gadget from her handbag and presses a few buttons. Sparkly things happen.] I've already got it!

So the language of competition and replacement (get the new model and now the update and then the update to that) comes to take occupation of what was once a haven. Advertisers of technology always use the language of replacement and play on and nurture that part of the human psyche. "You don't want that old [fill in the blank] around the house any more, do you!?"